Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe read profile is covered. The description is consistent with that but adds nothing further: it does not say what the steps look like, whether the optional client filter narrows output, or how an unknown slug is handled. Adequate against a lower annotation-era bar, not more.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action leading and the parameter instruction following. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read lookup with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The only genuine gap is the unmentioned client parameter that lets an agent narrow output to one environment.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds real value on half of that surface by stating the slug's provenance ('that find_tools returned'), but it never mentions the optional client parameter or its role in scoping results. Baseline 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the install steps') plus an explicit scope of one item ('one MCP server or skill'), and names the sibling find_tools as the source of the slug. An agent can select this over find_tools without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Establishes the prerequisite workflow directly: the slug must come from find_tools, which routes the agent to the correct ordering of the two sibling tools. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion is given, but the context is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.